(Published at 0059 UK time on 14 Jan 2013: for previous correspondence with regard to X&Y, see Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, a summary, Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6. Unless otherwise stated, all my blog posts, tweets, Pinterest, Facebook posts etc are made in a personal capacity.)
This is an update further to my email of 16 November (Part 6) requesting written clarification about an ambiguity in the Determination Reports of 28 Sep 2012. I show the subsequent correspondence below – you will see that I only received a written clarification to the first of my questions. Eventually (and only after insisting on a reply) I received an answer by telephone to my second question, which confirmed that contrary to the impression I had been given at my meeting on 12 November, the judicial immunity argument was put to the June 2011 Panel. Continue reading
(Published at 0521 UK time on 8 Jan 2013. Unless otherwise stated, all my blog posts, tweets, Pinterest, Facebook posts etc are made in a personal capacity.)
I am in the middle of the process of finalising the report that I promised to produce on my analysis of the operation of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries’ Disciplinary Scheme based on my experience over the period from July 2009 to date (i.e. to the end of 2012). Continue reading
I just entered the following in a Microsoft survey that I was asked to complete:
I’m a bit skeptical about completing feedback/surveys, because it very often seems as if Microsoft doesn’t listen to its users. For example, I reported several bugs within the Preview version of Office 2013 using the useful “Submit a smile or a frown” feedback feature , but only about half these were fixed in the release version, and no-one contacted me from Microsoft to explain why it was felt that the remaining bugs that I reported (some of which predated Office 2013), and many of which were obvious, weren’t going to be fixed and to explain why.
I last wrote about Windows 8 here, and Office 2013 (Preview) here, in both cases back in September, so 3 months ago.
With 3 more months of experience of Windows 8, you may be interested to know what I think of it now? Well, sorry Microsoft, but I’m afraid my answer has to be that I’m disappointed. Continue reading
(Posted in a personal capacity at 1732 UK time on 16 Nov 2012)
(Update at 2139 UK time on 13 Jan 2013: for previous correspondence with regard to X&Y, see Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, a summary, Part 4 and Part 5. Unless otherwise stated, all my blog posts, tweets, Pinterest, Facebook posts etc are made in a personal capacity.)
From: Patrick Lee
Sent: 16 November 2012 17:24
To: Mark Walters
Cc: ‘Ben Kemp’
Subject: Written clarification requested re an ambiguity in Determination Reports of 28 Sep 2012 re X and Y please
(as before, public and non confidential, and written in a personal capacity)
I am writing to ask please for written clarification about an ambiguity in the Determination Reports of 28 September 2012 re X and Y that I became aware of in a meeting on 12 November with Ben Kemp and Derek Cribb. Continue reading
(Posted at 2345 UK time on 10 Nov 2012. Unless otherwise notified, all my posts, tweets, etc. are made in a personal capacity).
I realise that it is hard for people to understand what this is all about, unless they have the time to read through all the relevant threads. So here is a summary of the key facts and events leading up to the present situation. I have tried to make it as short as possible, but there are 4 professional complaints involved (3 by me, 1 by another actuary), 5 different Adjudication Panels and 3 independent examiners, over a period of more than 3 years. I have also only shown events since May 2009 (when the first complaint was made). There are other aspects (not events) which I will not refer to until after 20 November 2012 by which time I hope to have received a statement from the Disciplinary Board. Note the Adjudication Panel members referred (Update 11 Nov 2012 0957: added missing word to here) to are anonymous until those which met in 2012. The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries abandoned its long-standing policy of keeping the identity of panel members secret in late 2011, it seems as a direct result of the complaints made below.
May 2009: Someone else (whom I shall refer to as “Alpha”) made a professional complaint that (paraphrasing a bit) during the 2009 (“Chartered Actuarial Profession”) merger campaign some actuaries had made statements that appeared to put an unwarranted pro-merger and simplistic “spin” on some data. For ease of reference, I colour code items relating to the “Alpha” complaint in yellow below. Continue reading
Complaint v anonymous actuaries
(Posted in a personal capacity at 0908 UK time on 7 Nov 2012)
Yesterday (the deadline for doing so) I referred the matter to an Independent Examiner in the light of the refusal by the 28 September 2012 Adjudication Panel to set out the reasons for their “inappropriate but no misconduct” finding, and in the absence of a denial (either by Institute and Faculty representatives or A and B) that A and B put forward the shameful argument that as I was unable to identify them (because they were anonymous), my complaint against them should be dismissed without investigation.
I shall publish my referral letter after 20 November, the date by which I have asked the Disciplinary Board for any statement they wish to make.
(Published at 1436 UK time on 26 Oct 2012. Unless otherwise stated, all my blog posts, tweets, Pinterest, Facebook posts etc are made in a personal capacity.)
Sent by email to Mark Walters and Jenny Conway at the Institute and Faculty.
Public and non confidential
Dear Mark and Jenny
I am asking as a matter of urgency please, given the astonishing revelations of concealment of material information by X and Y and others, for clear, unequivocal answers please to the following questions. Continue reading